Thursday, August 11, 2011

Stating The Obvious...

A long, long time ago, hopefully soon to be bought...

Disney is still in the buying mood it appears...

In a conference call with investors for the Walt Disney Company the other day, BobIger mentioned that the Mouse was looking at the opportunity to buy other characters. Now, I know that people will complain about a lack of creativity, but the Maestro himself purchased the rights to several characters he didn't own(101 Dalmatians, Winnie the Pooh, ect.). Many of those characters today are thought of as being as Disney as Mickey Mouse. But I'll take this opportunity to stand up on my soapbox once again:

These characters have been inside Disney Parks for two decades and most guests, particularly young boys, identify them as Disney characters to begin with. To inform them that they aren't owned by Disney would be a surprise to most if not all. If Iger is true to this statement then it's time to purchase them from Lucas and make it happen. I can only cross my fingers that this is what has been happening in back channels. I dream of Iger having meetings with GeorgeLucas up in Marin County, discussing a transaction similar to the Marvel deal over a nice lunch at Skywalker Ranch.

If there is any company that Lucas could/would/should leave his characters in the hands of, it's the Walt Disney Company. It represents a strong collection of characters that Iger can utilize across all sectors of the company. From merchandise, television, film, theme parks, the brands represent an opportunity for the company to expand earnings and generate content with a very recognizable list of characters.

Television offers opportunities as well, with the CloneWars series being such a success on the Cartoon Network, shows made for Disney XD would be a given. And lets not forget to mention my long dream of an "Indiana Jones" animated series from PaulDini. How about an animated series focusing on "The Adventures of Han & Chewie?" And if ABC can have a network show coming that stars the Hulk, could you not see one staring Republic Commandos?

Then there is the possibility of expanding the Lucasfilm brand in the parks. Could you see an entire section in the Hollywood Studios dedicated to Star Wars? Or even better: A Fifth Gate that is nothing but that? The opportunities are endless and as big as the universe the Bearded One created. So, I think Bob Iger should take the advise of one of Star Wars wisest characters:

I think it's great that Disney would be willing to take the reigns up on these characters (especially as George doesn't know how to use them anymore in his old age) but I wouldn't make the comparison that the characters Disney bought up for its animated features is anything like this. They were bought up to express new ideas and storytelling possibilities that transformed them into entirely new creations. A boba fett movie would be canonically linked to the boba fett of the originals, but the little mermaid is not the same subject of the original hans christian anderson story-the entire movie is its own standalone beast. That's the kind of ingenuity I think we're going to see in the future.

It's like roy said about making sequels to the love bug- 'you can only go so far down that road before the public begins to catch on.'

Are there really kids who think that Star Wars is a Disney product? I am at Disneyland frequently and constantly hear people asking why Star Tours is there- "It's not Disney is it?". Granted these must be people who have not been to Disneyland since Star Tours debuted 20 some years ago, but I don't think that Disney and Star Wars are by any means synonymous. But I guess ther are those people, kids whose families have been Annual pass holders their whole life who might be under that impression.

The "kids" that have shown up to Disneyland over the past decade or two don't know a Disneyland park without Star Wars.

I've talked to plenty of them in line and if you were to tell them it wasn't Disney they'd look at you with a question mark above their head.

The reason Star Tours is in the park is that it's the kind of thing Disney used to make and wasn't back in the 70's. That's why they made the deal with Lucas. It's also why they should make the deal with Lucas again to buy his company. Honor's hope is mine as well. Having them brought into the Disney family is the perfect home for them. It's also the perfect opportunity to have a new Star Wars film that doesn't suck. Here's a suggestion: Brad Bird directing a Star Wars film. Now THAT would be something that would make up for the Prequels.

Disney could have had "Clone Wars" as an anchor for DisneyXD and they didn't get it. I know this is one of your die hard fantasies, Honor, but it will never happen. I do really hope that Lucas and Disney find new ways to collaborate, though.

Just another idication that while forward tech savy. Igor is not interested and stumped to expand on what Disney already has, so looks to buy new just for profit. While Walt and previous CEOS bought project it was all abought growing what you already had not look for new because you had no in sight.

@Biggs- But I'd rather Brad Bird worked on something either he really wanted to do or something new. I mean it's easy assigning people who did good stuff to other projects, but paul dinis dialogue in arkham asylum wasn't exactly the shakespeare that was 'Batman: TAS', was it?

I think this makes a good strategic fit. If George is not ready to part with it, why not let him run the company with Disney owning it - like Marvel and Pixar. There are endless possibilities across all platforms. I would make me personally happy to see Star Tours and Indiana Jones Adventure as Disney owned characters and properties inside Disneyland and the other parks instead of outside properties licensed by Disney. That always bugged me. Movies, TV, Games, Theme Parks, Consumer Products, Animation, Spin offs. Yon name it, the sky's the limit.

Meh, why not? I'm still of the opinion that I would rather see DC in Disney's hands than Marvel, and that Star Tours was a Star Trek ride rather than a Star Wars one... those just seem like better fits all 'round... but I live in a fantasy world where those wouldn't happen. So, meh, why not?

It would be awesome for Disney to have creative freedom over Star Wars and Indiana Jones. As long as Disney didn't flog the franchises to death, then I'd be happy.

Another company could be Rovio - the makers of Angry Birds. They have voiced the desire to be "Disney 2.0" and with movies and merchandise already in the works it could be a key company on Disney's radar.

How about a Star Wars animated film from Pixar or Walt Disney Animated Studios under the guidance of John Lasseter? Or even a possible reboot/reinterpretation of the films the way J.J. Abrams did with "Star Trek." - a horrible, horrible idea. Regardless of who owns what and what 10 year olds know or don´t know, Star Wars is *not* Disney. And Abrams´ Star Trek "reinterpretation" is quite possibly the worst movie of the last 20 years (well, at least since M:I 3)

Considering that the only good Mission: Impossible film is M:I3, it shows your lack of taste. And Star Trek being the worst movie in the last 20 years??? You obviously don't get out to the movie theaters very much.

Uh, yeah, Walt purchased the rights to characters the studio didn't create, but then he RECREATED them into the Disney version, thus making those versions the honestly-owned artistic property of Disney. There's Collodi's Pinocchio and there's Disney's Pinocchio. There's Felix Salten's Bambi and Disney's Bambi. And the reason the Disney versions are more memorable than the originals is because the Disney versions are so freaking awesome. And there was more than just money involved in making them awesome. It was something called CREATIVITY. That's what Disney used to be known for. What is so frigging hard to understand about that? Why can't some people get the distinction between acquisition and artistry?

We've got theme parks in disrepair (including the infamous broken Yeti in WDW's Expedition Everest) and yet Iger's talking about spending another buttload of money on characters whose expiration date is long past. Clone Wars is garbage. Indiana Jones is dated as hell. (In fact, that show at WDW needs to leave. Last time I saw it, the audience was bored out of their minds). What Iger would do if he wasn't a two-bit bean-counter is invest in TALENT to create NEW characters and properties. But he won't, and it's just great, Honor, that so-called Disney fans like you are cheering him on.

And a Fifth Gate focused on Star Wars would flop resoundingly. The interest just isn't there. If people are still so enamoured of Lucas' universe, why isn't a new Star Wars movie getting greenlit? The Smurfs and the Chipmunks have been revived, why not Chewbacca?

Why not? Because Star Wars has shot its wad, and most people in the biz are smart enough to know it.

Please go back and reread my comment without pretending like I'm insulting you personally.

The fact that you make a reference to that particular book is kind of hysterical, for reasons that might become apparent if you go look at my own blog.

As for the Assumptioneer: yes, I did enjoy Cowboys & Aliens as a paint-by-numbers Wird Western action film and heard enough bad reviews and enough questionable good ones to avoid Captain America. It's just too bad you're not grown up enough to accept that people might have different tastes. Maybe put down the keyboard until you get out of high school.

I don't want Disneyland or any of the other parks, turning into Star Wars central. It would be nice for Disney to develop new characters.If you listed all the characters in the parks that Disney did not really develop, it would be a really long list. Even the Pixar Characters aren't really Disney.Stitch is a Disney developed character, some of the fun sidekicks in movies, such as Mulan and Rapunzel are unique to Disney even though the main characters are not.Just seems the newer developed characters flop, Chicken Little anyone? While the borrowed, licensed ones, Alice in Wonderland, Rapunzel, Snow White ect.. really catch on and are popular. Hmmmm??Anyway, that's my soapbox.

Cory Gross, you said that you heard enough bad reviews and enough questionable good ones to avoid Captain America. And you enjoyed Cowboys & Aliens.

Captain America's score on RT is 79%. C&A's score? 45%. (In other words, ROTTEN.) I'm a little bit surprised at you. Oh wait, I shouldn't be I guess considering how you overdo your life as a critic. If there's one little flaw from your POV (which is rather different from most), you automatically hate a movie.

Captain America was great; I think Thor was even better, but this one was great. Cowboys & Aliens was meh, the combination of western and sci-fi was rather weird. Worth watching however.

If there's one little flaw from your POV (which is rather different from most), you automatically hate a movie.

That is incorrect. I did get asked in that other thread what movies I think are good (which was part of the amusement with the other comment about my taste... I guess Walt Disney, Studio Ghibli, James Whale, Paul Grimault, Darren Arronofsky, Jean Cocteau, and Orson Welles are bad now because I like them). Nobody asked me what movies I like that are bad and why I would like them anyways. A really interesting exercise is finding all the faults in movies that one likes. I can tell you exactly what they are for my favorites.

If I have a little flaw as a critic, it's that I trust the trailers too much. That's because, moreso than a critic, I am a consumer, a member of the movie-going public. I don't want to waste my time or money on a terrible movie. Sometimes trailers are deceptive (oh The Fountain...) but if it makes a movie look bad, then I won't bother seeing it. Originally I wanted to see On Stranger Tides, Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and Captain America, but then I saw the trailers. And then I read the reviews. I'm baffled by Cap's RT rating, since even positive reviews mention the same faults as the negative reviews.

I gues maybe it's a matter of taste. Which, if I may venture, is your guys' flaw. In some ways I share Honor's exasperation that it has become some mission amongst you guys to convince me to see some bad movie you happen to like. I don't like Pixar or Lord of the Rings either, so harangue me about that for a change. It's as though you take my not wanting to see it as some kind of personal insult. It's even reached the level of a grudge now, where people bring it up in entirely different posts just to try digging at me.

It's not a bad movie Cory. For the last time, it's a very classic, sweet and very well written movie. The kind you don't find much anymore. That's what I think people are trying to get through to you. Did you read Alain's review over at Disney and More? He loved it as well as Honor. What everyone might be upset for, is why you judge it before even seeing it. They're asking you to at least see it and judge for yourself.

Cory, it's rather sad to see you looking for faults in the movies that you *do* like. Although it may be interesting, it'll eventually lead to the point where you hate movies in general. I just try to enjoy the movie; I don't look for faults unless they come up and beat my face (like with Transformers 2). Green Lantern's flaws came up and beat me around the face for pretty much the whole thing; so you haven't missed anything by not seeing that one.

"What everyone might be upset for, is why you judge it before even seeing it."

That is a very accurate statement indeed. I almost never judge a movie on whether it's good or bad without seeing it for myself.

If you insist on not seeing Captain America in the theater, then at least see it once it's out on DVD. And if you're a diehard POTC fan, you should also do On Stranger Tides once it's out. It's better than At World's End (although not as good as the original or even Dead Man's Chest).

On the contrary, being able to articulate the faults, as well as the qualities, of a movie you happen to like is a very positive thing. It disentangles matters of personal taste from a film's objective quality and, consequently, acts as either a curative to fanboyism or enables honest ownership of it. It allows you to step back and say "yeah, okay, this movie isn't very good but I like it for X, Y and Z... I wonder why that is?" or to say "yes, this is a good movie and it's not just because it has dinosaurs in it, and this is why..." You guys, in your life's mission to prove to me that my tastes are wrong, evidently didn't notice that I even stated what the faults of Cowboys and Aliens were. A critical mind - not a negative disposition, but a thinking intellect - is never, ever a waste.

As for judging... I judge every movie before I decide whether or not to go see it. So do you guys. The primary judgement anyone makes is whether or not they are going to see it at all. Giving something a chance is making an implicit judgement that it might be worth giving a chance to. Yeah, I'm judgemental. I didn't see The Zookeeper or Fast Five either. If you have enough money and time to go see every movie in the theatre simply because it exists and you don't want to be "judgemental", more power to you. I don't.

As for On Stranger Tides, I may go see it now that it's in the cheap theatres, despite the fact that friends explicitly told me not to see it, knowing how intensely I disliked PotC 2 and 3. PotC 1, by the way, is one of my favorite films and, in my opinion, probably the best Disney live-action film of the last 30 years.

You raise a fair point, Cory. I don't mind being able to articulate *some* faults--but if I were to end up looking for every single little "oopsie!" in a favorite movie of my mine, then I might end up not wanting to see it at all. Like, "I can't believe they made these dumb mistakes in the movie! I hate this movie now! Wait, what'd I just say?!!"

You can see my point. Perhaps I'm taking yours a little too literally.

Yes, we all judge whether we want to see a movie or not. In one respect, that might be judging that a certain movie will be good or bad. But what I'm referring to is how--before even seeing it--you already think Captain America is bad.

I certainly don't have the time or money to see *every* movie in the theater--which is why I skipped Zookeeper too--but I have enough to go quite frequently. That perhaps puts us at a sort of understanding level in one respect; if I were in a similar situation, I wouldn't have seen Fast Five, Green Lantern, Super 8, or Cowboys & Aliens in the theater.

But I would've still seen Captain America; which brings us back to our original argument. But I'm not gonna go there. The fact that you want to be careful about which movies you see--because you don't want to end up walking out disappointed--is respectable. I think that leaves this whole argument settled in my case (whatever the other commenters might still have to say).